7 ms·

You trust science because it has the highest probability of being accurate. What's the alternative? Most people aren't capable of analysis scietific research to

You trust science because it has the highest probability of being accurate. What's the alternative? Most people aren't capable of analysis scietific research to see if it's correct. What makes something political? If new research shows that X product is dangerous and republicans, who that company donates to, come out and disagree with the research they just made it political. Now, someone like you, can just say "This research is political" You've created a way to dismiss scientific research simply by disagreeing with it

colordrops 4y ago
You are completely misinterpreting the meaning of GP's comment. First, they are not talking about government politics, but rather interpersonal politics. Second, they are defending science, and saying that it shouldn't be dismissed for political reasons, rather than the opposite.
mattwilsonn888 4y ago
Jesus Christ, the point of science is to REMOVE trust - not be the least worst option. Science that cannot exist without trust is faith.
- fsflover 4y ago
  https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts/ https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-t...
- themitigating 4y ago
  You are confusing trust and faith. Science is perfect that's why it's the least worst option
  - mattwilsonn888 4y ago
    > Science is perfect Science is a process and it is never complete. You are confusing a process with the results of the process, which are by definition imperfect. What makes Science good is that it's results are fundamentally imperfect and tainted, and that it respects that. When you go around saying 'science is perfect' you disrespect its core principles.
CodeSgt 4y ago
There's a lot of middle ground between blindly trusting all 'science' and blatantly disregarding everything that rubs you the wrong way. It's possible to both have a generally high amount of faith in 'the science' while still remaining critical of its flaws, or rather, the flaws of the system in which its conducted.
- themitigating 4y ago
  How? If I'm critical of something what do I do? If there's a vaccine and the majority of people in that field say it's safe but you want me to be critical what do I do?
- Test0129 4y ago
  I don't think this is the case. The point of science as one commenter pointed out is a lack of trust (or faith). Hence the need for pages and pages of sources, concerted efforts on reproducibility, etc. In certain fields reproducibility is extremely important and a single scientific article should be taken with extreme skepticism until it's reproduced several times. I think this is the thing that's often skipped. A single article being published in a journal is not a sign of changing times. If there's no attempts to reproduce it we have an idea of something, but no idea if it works (really). Often times this lack of reproducibility is associated with so-called corporate "science" (Phillip Morris, from another example I posted). I hesitate to use the word faith at all, even when describing the scientific process itself. Having faith in the process leads to (for lack of a better phrase) a failure to trust, but verify. IMO, it is one thing to approach scientific literature with a trusting demeanor and still walk through the proper processes to verify the results, and another thing entirely to literally take the author's word. Often times especially when big names are attached we aren't trusting-and-verifying we are simply taking their word. That's a problem that weakens the credibility of science. I don't want to come off as someone who disregards everything he doesn't like. However, I do approach science with great pessimism and have since graduate school. Not because I hate it, or something is wrong with the scientific method, but because approaching it pessimistically allowed me to write better work by forcing me to actually perform the method instead of p-hacking my way to a result.
  - 4y ago

colordrops 4y ago

You are completely misinterpreting the meaning of GP's comment. First, they are not talking about government politics, but rather interpersonal politics. Second, they are defending science, and saying that it shouldn't be dismissed for political reasons, rather than the opposite.

mattwilsonn888 4y ago

Jesus Christ, the point of science is to REMOVE trust - not be the least worst option. Science that cannot exist without trust is faith.

fsflover 4y ago
https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts/ https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-t...
themitigating 4y ago
You are confusing trust and faith. Science is perfect that's why it's the least worst option
- mattwilsonn888 4y ago
  > Science is perfect Science is a process and it is never complete. You are confusing a process with the results of the process, which are by definition imperfect. What makes Science good is that it's results are fundamentally imperfect and tainted, and that it respects that. When you go around saying 'science is perfect' you disrespect its core principles.

CodeSgt 4y ago

There's a lot of middle ground between blindly trusting all 'science' and blatantly disregarding everything that rubs you the wrong way. It's possible to both have a generally high amount of faith in 'the science' while still remaining critical of its flaws, or rather, the flaws of the system in which its conducted.

themitigating 4y ago
How? If I'm critical of something what do I do? If there's a vaccine and the majority of people in that field say it's safe but you want me to be critical what do I do?
Test0129 4y ago
I don't think this is the case. The point of science as one commenter pointed out is a lack of trust (or faith). Hence the need for pages and pages of sources, concerted efforts on reproducibility, etc. In certain fields reproducibility is extremely important and a single scientific article should be taken with extreme skepticism until it's reproduced several times. I think this is the thing that's often skipped. A single article being published in a journal is not a sign of changing times. If there's no attempts to reproduce it we have an idea of something, but no idea if it works (really). Often times this lack of reproducibility is associated with so-called corporate "science" (Phillip Morris, from another example I posted). I hesitate to use the word faith at all, even when describing the scientific process itself. Having faith in the process leads to (for lack of a better phrase) a failure to trust, but verify. IMO, it is one thing to approach scientific literature with a trusting demeanor and still walk through the proper processes to verify the results, and another thing entirely to literally take the author's word. Often times especially when big names are attached we aren't trusting-and-verifying we are simply taking their word. That's a problem that weakens the credibility of science. I don't want to come off as someone who disregards everything he doesn't like. However, I do approach science with great pessimism and have since graduate school. Not because I hate it, or something is wrong with the scientific method, but because approaching it pessimistically allowed me to write better work by forcing me to actually perform the method instead of p-hacking my way to a result.
- 4y ago